**So Mac, is it violence to point to a fact? Like, “this looks like analysis.” Or, is it violence to say, “You are analyzing, and you shouldn’t be analyzing.”
Is pointing out something that appears to be creating conflict an act of violence?
Who is it hurting to point out an apparent fact?
If we said to a child, “Stop, there’s a car coming,” are we being violent to the child?
If we said, “What’s wrong with you, don’t you know better,” is that being violent to the child?
What I’m asking is this, Do we see a difference between ‘observing human conditioning together’, and telling each other what we should or shouldn’t do?
Are both of those violence, or only the latter?
"Its not what you do, its the why that you do it… " vaguely Bananarama and Funboy three.
I don’t know, depends whether the relationship is conflictual. Depends whether I want you to see the facts in the same way that I do. Depends who we are pointing at. Depends if I intend to bend reality to my wishes.
**So, is this an example of how humanity generally meets what is? With analytical measurement? What do you see K pointing to when suggesting to ‘die’ each moment to the psychological beliefs, in order to meet each other free of the known? Are we able to meet if we carry these psychological evaluations from memory into each new encounter? Are we dependent on the “other” to respond according to thought expectations in order for us to die to the psychological thought of an observer/ego structure? Are we, humanity, subservient to these psychological beliefs?
Thought is in the field of thought. Even thinking about this will throw up the ways of thinking. The analogies and all that stuff, are in the field of thought. Perhaps someone can get some more thorough understanding, but will miss the whole condition for which we see we are affected in some part or another. This affect is what thought responds to in a externalised, fragmented way, and this is violation.
**“Thought is in the field of thought?” How does this response address the question, "Are you suggesting that ‘fundamentally’ thought has to compare psychologically? It looks like you’re sharing a stored psychological view from memory, painting a hypothetical scenario. How is that addressing the question?
I am thinking about the question, not looking for nor providing answers. When looking at a question, answers are only dealing with words and concepts, in a field of thought, and this is comparative. But violence is an important question and must be looked at deeply, not externally. Friends talking together
Are we looking together at psychological thought, or practical thought?.We can see that for practical situations that comparing reflects intelligence. Like looking to see which person might have the expertise to do the work we need done.
Why do you distinguish thought - Psychologically & practically? Please explain the differentiation. Comparing does not brings out ‘Intelligence’. It just brings out ‘who is better’. But ‘Intelligence’ is far beyond that.
And yes, practically, we need to compare for ‘business’. ‘Business’ means to make profit - reduce time, cost, etc… But this form of comparison - should be restricted only ‘to earn for living’. But Comparison in case of - finding the ‘truth’, to inquire what ‘love’ is, etc… - it’s a form of violence.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Blockquote
Hello Peter - Well, I wasn’t looking for an answer, I was looking to see what you are seeing, You seemed to be suggesting that thought has to compare psychologically, so I was interested in seeing where you see this?
**The main reason for distinguishing between the two is that practical thought doesn’t lead to conflict, and psychological thought is the root of conflict. So if we’re interested in seeing the nature of conflict for ourselves, that’s where the exploration leads. That’s also why Krishnamurti spent over 50 years inviting people to inquire with him.
K: The purpose of our inquiry, into all of this, is to bring about a good society, in which we human beings can live happily, without fear, without conflict, without all of the striving, struggling, all the brutality, and all of the rest of it. That is the intention of inquiry - Saanen 1979
**Psychological thought is also illusion, or make believe, and divisive. Thought that says someone has more intrinsic value than another human is illusion.
Are you saying that “a good society” depends on consensus?
If I say : “the election was rigged” or “was not rigged”, is that practical thought?
**No, but I am suggesting that we, humanity, need to create it together. In transforming our consciousness, the society is transformed.
If we actually see that fraud has actually occurred, then saying it was rigged would simply be the description of a fact, or practical thought. But if it’s simply a ‘belief’, without seeing the fraud, then it’s a psychological assumption or belief.
If two people are arguing over this, and neither can offer tangible proof, then it’s clearly psychological thought, what “I” think, versus, what “you” think.
DB: What do you mean by psychological knowledge? Knowledge about the mind, knowledge about myself?
K: Yes. Knowledge about myself, and living in that knowledge, and accumulating that knowledge. - The Ending of Time
You seem to be saying 3 things:
1)Thought is psychological 
(and people can argue about different beliefs?)
2)Knowledge about oneself is psychological (and we accumulate and identify with that knowledge?)
3)We need to transform our consciousness?
I don’t know what you are really trying to point at regarding 1) & 2), and 3)brings up the question : haven’t peoples consciousness been changing? Beliefs change, societies change - what do you mean by “transforming our consciousness”?
**Well, apparently all thought is psychological. But it seems useful to distinguish between aspects or activities occurring in the environment that we apply labels to, like table, hammer, car, swimming, talking, bathroom, kitchen, etc., etc., and call that “practical knowledge or thought,” and the thought which we might call “my beliefs and opinions” as being “psychological thought.” As the beliefs and opinions about “what I think,” versus “what you think,” are the thoughts involved in human conflict.
Yes to your no.2
Regarding #3 - Yes, if we see the insanity of continuing to behave incoherently. But it’s not about telling anyone what they need to do.
Regarding your last question, I would say that as long as the brain is caught in the illusion of separateness, then all we’re really doing is “decorating the prison.”
Here you are saying that, in case of Non living beings - ‘Image’ does not raise any conflict. But in case of ‘Living Beings’ - that ‘image’ is the root of conflict. Right?
No, Consciousness is ‘Truth’. And ‘Truth’,‘Love’ is permanent, unchangeable. It cannot be transformed in time. It’s always there from the time of creation and before too. We are caught in our ‘Images’, ‘I’, etc… And only through negating all these, we can find what ‘Consciousness’ really means.
Speculation implies an answer.
**Not exactly. Beliefs can also be formed about most anything. We can call something a hammer, which makes practical sense. But then one human could say, “I” think this is the best hammer. And another person could say, “I think its’s a lousy hammer.” Likewise, we could define different types of music as Country, Rock, or Classical, for practical purposes. And then one person might say, “Country music sucks.” It’s about “subjective value judgments.”
Conflict arises based on change of behaviour on time and not on opinions. Let’s inquire into this. Hammer is a physical object and we have sensual experience by seeing & using it. Let’s say we need to buy an “electric vehicle”. Experts say, Tesla is the best. But I may differ from that. But by making a test drive of all other company’s, I may conclude that ‘Tesla’ or ‘other’ is better. It’s just an opinion. The Behaviour of those cars does not change. Like wise in case of Music. It’s behaviour does not change in time. It is that. Opinion differs, based on what they need. One may say “Sex is the best feeling”, one may say “it sucks and according to them alcohol is the best”. There is no conflict in it.
But in case of living beings particularly Humans, Behaviour changes in time. So if we have an Image of ‘Him’ or ‘I’, we are concluding with what ‘was’ and does not see what ‘is’. So there arises conflict. There arises fear, sufferings, pain, pleasure, etc… and not the truth.
The meaning of Conflict in the context of K is, difference between what was and what is, and it is based on “Behaviour change” and not on change in opinions.
Conflict arise based on Image and Comparison arise based on Opinions. I may choose - Blue color shirt,Melody, etc… and you may choose red color shirt, jazz, etc… There is no conflict here and only opinions. But when we become slave of our opinions and give Authority to something and someone, then to show our discipline, we fight which is best. If I am a slave for Melody Songs, I will debate and fight with you as you differ from my opinion. Here there is no Image and only a slave for an authority. This what happens in the world. My Religion is the Highest. Your’s is Nothing. And the Debates are going on and on and on.
And so we can conclude that “Yes, Comparison is a form of Violence”
If I’m wrong please correct me.
Not only that. Images about ‘me’ also a conflict. What I think about ‘me’ and what actually and truly ‘I’ am (i.e.Conscuiousness) also arises conflict.
**I would just suggest that there never ‘was’ a him or I, that’s just thought imagery. But yes, it’s not seeing ‘what is’ to imagine that.
**I would say it’s an ‘image’ of what was, not what actually was.
**We have this difficulty using words like I or we, but I don’t see a ‘we’ that becomes a slave. It’s the brain that is caught in words and concepts being confused for the actual. There is no ‘I’ or ‘you’ debating. The brain is simply responding according to the ‘conditioning’, which contains the idea of a separate “me,” who is being questioned by “you.” So the brain searches the stored knowledge for a way to prove “the other” wrong, to protect the security of this imagined “I,” to make sure “others” don’t see “me” as weak or stupid. “My” religion is the highest because that’s the ‘stored belief’ in the brain, which has stored this belief as the “truth.” If the stored Religion is questioned, the brain will automatically react like a reflex defending it. There’s no “I” choosing any of that. It’s the conditioned brain responding like a reflex according to its programming.
**I don’t think observing together is about making thought conclusions of right or wrong. I think it’s about the freedom to observe what is. So I’m just ‘describing’ what appears to be actually occurring.
But yes, comparison appears to be a form of subtle violence. It’s a subtle ‘devaluing’ of the human being, which encourages “becoming.”
1 Like
The purpose I used ‘was’ is, ‘Image’ is ‘past’ - and so we are seeing the past of one person i.e. what ‘was’.
Say if some one is so kind to me in past, then next time i see him - Images of him - being kind to me - appears (i.e. what he ‘was’). So, we cannot observe - what he ‘is’. he may be angry on me ‘now’. Then there is conflict. I will fight him by saying ‘Last time you was so kind to me - but now you are angry on me. I can’t accept your change. Get lost.’ Then there is no relationship. But when he is angry on me now, we have to sit with him - without any image of him, and ask “why you are angry on me?, Please say the reason behind it - so I can understand what happened”. He calms down, and says “this is”. Then there is actual relationship
It’s just a verbal communication. to refer Human Beings. Nothing else.